The United Nations appeared on the verge of breaking the deadlock over Lebanon recently, paving the way for a Security Council resolution in which major powers including the United States and Britain would demand an immediate end to fighting.
As violence escalated in Lebanon, diplomats insisted that disagreements on the council were now all but resolved, and that a resolution could be voted on by early next week. The delay will give Israel more time to pursue its military offensive against Hizbullah.
The US and Britain have been opposing calls for an immediate ceasefire, demanding that a long-term solution be devised first, while France has insisted that a ceasefire must precede any such negotiations. But there is now ”95% convergence” between Washington, London and Paris, one council diplomat said. No other countries are involved at this stage of the negotiation, and any resulting draft will have to be agreed by a majority of the 15-member Security Council.
The resolution would call for a truce, and possibly a beefed-up version of the existing UN peacekeeping force. It could be followed by a second resolution authorising a more powerful international force, a buffer zone between opposing forces and a plan to disarm Hizbullah.
The draft resolution calls for an ”immediate cessation of hostilities”, rather than a ceasefire. That is the language preferred by the US — which sees ”ceasefire” as implying a permanent arrangement — and the same watered-down version that was pushed through the European Union foreign ministers’ meeting by Britain and Germany.
A central part of the resolution would address how to prevent further arms reaching Hizbullah over the Syrian border during a truce. ”There has to be an understanding between parties that, as hostilities end, no one takes advantage of that,” the diplomat said.
The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said discussions were ongoing about ”the nature of a cessation of hostilities and how to make it permanent”. But he declared himself ”impressed by the good faith” on all sides.
Crucially, however, it remained unclear what effect a UN resolution might have on the ground. Diplomats said they doubted the US would have signed on to the plan without an indication that Israel intended to cooperate, but Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has spoken of a ceasefire being weeks away.
Russia and China, the other council members with veto power, had also yet to be consulted, and it remained unclear what degree of communication there would be between the UN and Hizbullah in a bid to enforce a cessation.
Even if it did take effect, the cessation would not require Israel to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. ”I don’t think it’s realistic to imagine there’s going to be a widespread Israeli withdrawal,” one Western diplomat said. ”They would be where they are.” — Â